Given everything else that was going on with the map, I can see how this got missed. BUT shouldn't the overprint of an uncrossable boundary be off-set from the feature on the map in order to allow for the feature to remain legible

Unfortunealty not as depicted by symbol 707 see International Specificationfor Orienteering Maps

Just look at the routes some runners have already posted on routegadget for other courses. Where the map is crystal clear that you shouldnt cross .. and they have ... I guess they gambled on not being caught, or couldnt be bothered to abide by the rules or dont know the rules. We are not perfect especially when we are under pressure to put on an event in the most extreme of circumstances or when we are racing at speed it appears.

Given everything else that was going on with the map, I can see how this got missed. BUT shouldn't the overprint of an uncrossable boundary be off-set from the feature on the map in order to allow for the feature to remain legible

Unfortunately not as depicted by symbol 707 see International Specificationfor Orienteering Maps

I agree. It is not so depicted under ISOM (symbol 707). Mind you, ISOM doesn't consider the occasion where so doing would obscure a legal route. So there's that.

To me it seemed clear. Five exits out of the field have been clearly marked. The one in the NE has been covered with an overprint, so why risk going there to check it out.

When I chose the route I saw the track - I didn't see the overprint. However, on closer inspection, I noticed the overprint had been drawn over the track, flush with the olive green settlement. I didn't know what this meant. It was the JK so I had to assume it was intentional, but it didn't make sense to me.

A crossing point (ISOM 708) wouldn't be required for a track which entered the field, so that didn't bother me.

It's interesting to note a previous version of the map on Routegadget MVOC in 2012 shows a crossing point at this point.

Erm, I think on the previous map the olive green area extends further to the west, maybe 60-80m, and the crossing point (symbol 525) is at the NW corner of the extension, close to the location of the eastern crossing point on the JK competition map. I don't think there's a fence obstructing access to the track/road on the new map.

An overprinted crossing point, as per MacMan's third map extract, would have been the clearest option, but it wasn't required in order for the route to be legal.

I've sorted out something sensible for Day 3 splits so Routegadget is now unlocked for courses 1 to 11.

The road crossing time is not excluded from the splits, but it is from the total times. This means most people end up with a negative run-in split and Splitsbrowser gets very confused. On the positive side it means Autofit should work (although my raw GPX file was pretty good already), and you can see the real-time situation for the whole course.

MacMan wrote:... not as depicted by symbol 707 see International Specificationfor Orienteering Maps

But I don't this specifies what a "boundary" has to be for this purpose? Effectively 707 (or 708 in ISOM 2017) is just a line that must not be crossed.

In this case the symbol perhaps could have been diverted diagonally across the SE corner of the finish field, starting west of the olive green, which would have made the validity of the route completely clear. Okay, it would have meant that crossing the fence into that small corner of the finish field, and then crossing it out again a few yards later was technically permitted, against the wishes of the landowner, but in practice no-one would have done this.

But I don't this specifies what a "boundary" has to be for this purpose? Effectively 707 (or 708 in ISOM 2017) is just a line that must not be crossed.

I believe it means a boundary feature that must not be crossed. Fences and walls are typical such boundaries, in their example they use a fence. If 707 were intended to create the boundary, the example would simply have depicted a purple line of 0.7mm width.

If there is a solid line (0.7mm) in the overprint, you would expect to find something there, either a natural boundary or an artificial one (solid, barriers). That's my understanding.

Mind you, in this instance, if a solid line had been drawn, I wouldn't have gone there to check the feature.

To me, the route through the field just S of the finish looked illegal, and if there was no way out it certainly wasn't worth getting dead-ended in the corner of the field, so I went the hillier way across the S tip of the southern field.

The map aspect which cost me time was near control 215 (copse) on Saturday. Approaching from the SE the red line crosses rough open, yet there was a bigger copse of trees directly in line. Not feeling the need to pace, I stopped short and hunted for the control on the non-existent extra copse.

King Penguin wrote:To me, the route through the field just S of the finish looked illegal, and if there was no way out it certainly wasn't worth getting dead-ended in the corner of the field, so I went the hillier way across the S tip of the southern field.

The map aspect which cost me time was near control 215 (copse) on Saturday. Approaching from the SE the red line crosses rough open, yet there was a bigger copse of trees directly in line. Not feeling the need to pace, I stopped short and hunted for the control on the non-existent extra copse.

That certainly threw me - I've since checked on Bing air photos and there are 3 or 4 obvious clumps of trees in that block. Quite why one was marked with a distinct boundary and the others not marked at all is a bit beyond me!